Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T19:19:10.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Well Does Neurology Residency Mirror Practice?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Fraser G.A. Moore  and
Colin Chalk
Fraser G.A. Moore
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Centre for Medical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Colin Chalk*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Centre for Medical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
*
Room L7-313, Montreal General Hospital, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1A4.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To report the residency training experience of two neurologists, focusing on setting and diagnoses encountered.

Methods:

Data from prospective patient logs kept by the authors during residencies completed a decade apart were compared with each other and the literature.

Results:

The range of diagnoses was broadly similar between residencies, as were the proportions of common or uncommon disorders, and the proportion of cases without a neurological diagnosis. Although most patients were seen in in-patient settings, the rates at which common neurological conditions and functional disorders were seen was comparable to published experiences of community neurologists.

Conclusions:

The diagnostic profile of North American neurology residency appears to be relatively stable, regardless of location or date of training. In several respects, the content of current neurology residencies mirrors clinical practice well. Changes to residency training are doubtless needed, but they should be guided by a clear understanding of the experiences of contemporary trainees.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:Objectif:

Rapporter l’expérience de la formation en neurologie de deux neurologues en mettant l’accent sur le contexte et les pathologies observées.

Méthodes:

Les données recueillies de façon prospective par les auteurs pendant leur résidence effectuée à une décennie d’intervalle ont été comparées entre elles et à celles qui sont publiées.

Résultats:

La gamme des diagnostics était en général similaire ainsi que la proportion des pathologies fréquentes et rares rencontrées ainsi que la proportion de cas sans diagnostic neurologique. Bien que la plupart des patients aient été vus en milieu hospitalier, le taux de pathologies neurologiques fréquentes et de désordres fonctionnels était comparable à celui rapporté dans la littérature pour des neurologues en pratique courante.

Conclusions:

Le profile de la résidence en neurologie en Amérique du Nord semble être relativement stable quel que soit l’endroit ou le moment de la résidence. Sous plusieurs aspects, le contenu de la résidence en neurologie reflète bien la pratique clinique. Il ne fait aucun doute que des changements doivent être apportés à la formation en neurologie, mais ces changements devraient être guidés par une bonne compréhension de l’expérience des résidents actuels.

Type
Original Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 472 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2005

References

1. Gelb, DJ. Teaching neurology residents in the out-patient setting. Neurology 1994;51:817–820.Google Scholar
2. Ringel, SP, Vickrey, BG, Keran, CM, Bieber, J, Bradley, WG. Training the future neurology workforce. Neurology 2000; 54: 480–484.Google Scholar
3. Desbiens, R, Elleker, MG, Goldsand, G, et al. Current educational issues in the clinical neurosciences. Can J Neurol Sci 2001; 28: 299–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Corboy, JR, Boudreau, E, Morgenlander, JC, Rudnicki, S, Coyle, PK. Neurology residency training at the millennium. Neurology 2002; 58: 1454–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Schroeder, SA, Showstack, JA, Gerbert, B. Residency training in internal medicine: time for a change? Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 554–561.Google Scholar
6. Wiest, FC, Ferris, TG, Gokhale, M, et al. Preparedness of internal medicine and family practice residents for treating common conditions. JAMA 2002; 288: 2609–2614.Google Scholar
7. McLeod, PJ, Snell, L. Casemix in an internal medicine clerkship: Educational value of the clinical problems seen. J Gen Intern Med 1991; 6: 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. D’Esposito, M. Profile of a neurology residency. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 1123–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Kurtzke, JF. The current neurologic burden of illness and injury in the United States. Neurology 1982; 32: 1207–1214.Google Scholar
10. Simpson, CA. A community neurologist’s personal viewpoint on neurological training. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 1977; 4: 265–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Murray, TJ. Relevance in undergraduate neurology teaching. Can J Neurol Sci 1977; 4: 131–137.Google Scholar
12. MacDonald, BK, Cockerell, OC, Sander, JWAS, Shorvon, SD. The incidence and lifetime prevalence of neurological disorders in a prospective community-based study in the UK. Brain 2000; 123: 665–676.Google Scholar
13. Ringel, SP, Franklin, GM, DeLapp, C, Boyko, EJ. A cross-sectional comparative study of outpatient neurologic practices in Colorado. Neurology 1988; 38: 1308–1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Menken, M. The scope of neurologic practice. Evidence from a practice study. Arch Neurol 1985; 42: 386–387.Google Scholar
15. Perkin, GD. Pattern of neurological outpatient practice: implications for undergraduate and postgraduate training. J R Soc Med 1986; 79: 655–657.Google Scholar
16. Rose, AS. Graduate training in neurology. An assessment based on the opinions of 80 neurologists in private practice. Arch Neurol 1971; 24: 165–168.Google Scholar